LexGOVERDHAN LAL DHAWAN versus STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
;
GOVERDHAN LAL OHAW AN
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS
JULY 27, 1988
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.M .. DUTT, JJ.]
A
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Whether without a prior agreement
between two or more Regional Transport A!tthorities of regions tflrqugh
which an inter-regional route patses, it is ()pen t() q11yone 9f the said
Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit to ply a st(lg~ cqrriag_e
on the said inter-regional route, under provisions of.. ·
-
C
The short point which arose for consid.eration iJ,t tll.i.s ci1se was
whether withont a prior agreement between two or me>re R~i.on11I
Transport Authorities of the regions throug)l which. 81! inter.regioJ,llll
route passes, it was open to any one of the said Regional Transport I)
Authorities to grant a permit to ply a stage carriage on tbe sold int.er•
regional route under the provisions of the Motor Vell.i_cles. A_ct, 1.939
('the Act').
The North Bihar Regional Transport Authority invited applicll-.
tions for granting stage carriage permits iJ,t respect of int'-r·~ol'!al e
routes connecting certain plac.,,. withiJ,t its jurisd,iction aJ,td ~ertllil'I e>ther
places within . the jurisdiction of the Soutll. !lillar Regional Transport
Authority. The petitioner filed a wriJ petition in the Hig)l C()urt, q11¢s-
tioning the power of th.e North Bihar Regional Transport A11th()rity to
grant permits above-said with90t 11 prior agree111ent ~twee11 it alt4 tile
South Bihar Regional TrllllSport Auth9rity. The High_ Co0rt. c!is111issed
p
the writ petition- Aggrieved by the order of the ftigh Court, the
petitioner moved this Court for relief by this petition for special leave.
Dismissi~ the ™'titie>n, the Court,
HELD: Under section 45(1) of tile Act, an applic.atioJ,t for l! G
permit for a vehicle propose(I to be used. in tw0 o.r m11re regions within
the same State, has to be made to the Regionaj Tr3"'Sport Authority of
the region in which. tile major pC)rtioJ,t of the proPC>se'l rQl!l.e or area ~.
and in case tlte portion of the proposed r11utec · o.r 11r-ea i_l! e..c.h_ (If tlte
r.egie>i:isis apprQXim11tely equal, to ti!e R~ional. Trl!!lsPtlrt. A.11t!wl'itY of
the regionJn_ which it,is proposed t.o keep tile vehicle. (5~6F'-(;J_
H
593
A
B
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.
Under section 63 of the Act, in the absence of any rules to the
contrary under the Act, a permit granted by the Regional Transport
Authority of one region is not valid in any other region unless the
permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of
the other region, while counter-signing a permit, it is open to the
Regional Transport Authority of the other region to impose its own
conditions which it might have imposed if it bad granted the permit.
If there are any rules framed by the State Government under the Act,
they supersede the provisions of section 63. If there is an agreement
between the States concerned with regard to the grant and the counter-
signature of the permits, then it is not necessary to comply with the
procedure prescribed by section 63, for counter-signature of permits.
C In this case, the provisions of section 63 of the Act applied to all the
inter-regional permits in the State of Bihar, as no rule framed under the
Act by the State of Bihar regarding the procedure to be followed in the
case of counter-signature of permits was brought to the notice of the
Court. l598E-H; 599A]
D
Section 47(3) being inapplicable to the inter-State or inter-
regional permits, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority con-
cerned to decide whether there is any necessity to issue the permit
applied for. The Act does not contain any procedure for two or more
Regional Transport Authorities entering into an agreement before an
application for an inter-regional permit is granted. The only provision
E which provides for an agreement to be arrived at for purposes of
counter-signature is the agreement between two or more States referred
to in the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Act. An
inter-State agreement of that nature can be arrived at only after follow-
ing the procedure prescribed under sub-section (3A) of section 63 when
it is open to the parties affected by the proposal to make representa-
F
lions. In one sense, the procedure prescribed in sub-section (3A) of
section 63 takes the place of procedure to be followed by a Regional
Transport Authority while granting or counter-signing permExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.